2 total
Appeal of property damage claim dismissal and cross-appeal for substantial indemnity costs both dismissed.
The appellant appealed the dismissal of her claim for water damage to her property allegedly caused by the respondents, arguing the trial judge erred in credibility findings, was biased, and misapprehended evidence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's factual and credibility findings were well supported and there was no reasonable apprehension of bias.
The respondents' cross-appeal for substantial indemnity costs was also dismissed, as the trial judge's costs decision was entitled to deference.
Appeal dismissed as trial judge reasonably found the risk of harm was not foreseeable.
The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their claim of negligent design.
The trial judge found that it was not reasonably foreseeable that a 'lazy line' would come into contact with a loop and cut through it.
The Court of Appeal upheld this finding, noting that the trial judge properly recognized manufacturers are not insurers and avoided applying hindsight.
The appeal was dismissed with costs of $12,500 awarded to the respondents.
